January 7, 2008

Says Hillary Clinton, in her "teary" statement. It's getting a lot of play, so I'm linking in case you want to talk about it. Is it a phony effort to get your sympathy? (Seems like a bad move.) Is she just really tired? Or was it really something about about the questioner's expression of sympathy — how do you do it? — that brought out a truly vulnerable side? I don't know. But it seems a little like the feminine gesture she made at the debate when she said the her feelings were hurt. I think someone — an excellent actress? — is coaching her in how to display womanly emotion.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Hillary Clinton’s national polling lead has collapsed. Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a seventeen-point lead over Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to four percentage points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error.

MORE: I just listened to Rush Limbaugh's treatment of this incident. He made much of the fact that there are no visible tears. There's the teary voice, but no real tears.

Folks, this is so calculated, this is no different than the makeup... This is the sympathy play! This is the gender card again! I'm going to tell you exactly what this is. This is the latest version of invading my space. This is a reenactment with tears of the Rick Lazio moment, ladies and gentlemen. Should a man get away with bringing Mrs. Clinton to tears? Should a man, be it me, be it Obama, should a man get away with bringing Mrs. Clinton to tears?... This is purely calculated. This is Bill Clinton coaching her, "Look, don't bite your lower lip like I do, they'll accuse you of copying me, do some fake tears out there, show 'em you really care."

173 comments:

What I dread most in this political season is the “genuine” moment - and it is coming, soon, sometime between today and tomorrow, or tomorrow and New Hampshire - when Mrs. Clinton, in her ongoing effort to turn herself into whatever the polls says she must be, cries in public. It’s going to be genuinely ghastly.

1. It cuts into Obama's national exposure as the new front-runner. He had a GMA interview out today.

2. It is an attempt to draw out sexists to attack a woman for crying, which in turn should shore up her natural base, women. (This didn't work before, but hey.)

3. It is guaranteed to get airplay, so she can counter all her negatives in prime time (not human enough, cold, distant, everything she says is poll-tested), while stealing Edwards' "it's personal for me" line and slipping in her anti-Obama mantra "some of us aren't ready to lead".

They don't have any other moves left, but this will stall the negative news cycle prior to NH. It gives her breathing room, perhaps enables her to place second instead of third, assuming it has some effect.

This is sad. But she is really an amateur in politics. Being at her husband's side is not a qualification be it in Arkansas or DC. She is in over her head and it is really starting to show. What executive experience has she ever had? Pushing papers across a legal desk is not executive experience. The people of NY gave her a walk-on office as senator; she had no real opposition and therefore no trial before an electorate. She will go down below the ripples with few bubbles. The inEVITAble candidate has hit the wall from the flag.

Doyle saidI think someone - an awful blogger? - is coaching you on how to write nauseating pablum.

Not only is Hillary getting coached, she will probably win the Academy award for the best campaign. BTW, notice the new look? She looks so much younger. Does she have a Hollywood make up artist working on her?

Hillary is the Titanic of the Democratic Party. Maybe Leonardo Di Caprio can play her in the movie.

I do feel sorry for her, but her problems are of her own making. She forgot that to get the nomination she has to win a Democratic primary, and she kept on veering to the right (I enumerated the votes that mattered to me in the comments on this thread.) So is it any wonder that Democrats, who wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman four years ago, are now choosing someone other than Hillary? We want someone who is more committed to liberal positions.

Just saw an interview with HC. she is already back pedaling and trying to justify her breakdown. Typical. I cried, but did not cry, so I cried, but I shed no tears, I cried before I did not cry, then I did not cry.

Hillary is acting. She has no emotions. Oh, and to her bad deal with Bill- that deal has been bad before the White House.

Hillary is supposed to be smart; an intellectual. She went to top tier schools. She is supposedly an attorney. I guess she did not receive that great of an education. her vocabulary is suffering. She never learned the word DIVORCE. Which she should have done years ago.

"To me, there are three things we all should do every day. We should do this every day of our lives. Number one is laugh. You should laugh every day. Number two is think. You should spend some time in thought. And Number three is, you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be happiness or joy. But think about it. If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day. That's a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week, you're going to have something special."

I can't believe I agree with Alpha, but I don't think Hillary is acting. It is not that I think she has any compunction about manipulation, it is just that 'coaching or not' she just isn't that great of an actress.

My theory is that she has felt that the presidency was hers for so long that, now when it seems to be slipping away, this is hard for her to adjust to.

Women have been whining about the so-called "Glass Ceiling" for years. Well, every time one of the "sistahs" breaks out in tears, it really underscores the realization that women are not ready in America to have their hands on the reins of power.

Obama was asked if Clinton should drop out if he wins the Granite State primary tomorrow.

"I would never presume to say anything like that. Look, we've had one caucus, and this would be one primary. And right now Im just focused on tomorrow. We've got to get our voters out," he said.

"It would be such a shame after seeing the great turnout in Iowa, if we weren't working as hard as we could to make sure that story continues. Because I think that's the biggest story out of Iowa: 18 to 30 year olds voting at the same rate as seniors, doubling caucus turnout. That transcends any individual candidate, if that happens we're changing the political landscape," Obama said.

She was trying to change the story to: "It's all about me." Instead of: "Let's make history and engage young and new voters." That is sad enough to make me cry, too.

Actually AlphaLiberal, the video looks worse to me than the media descriptions do.

Her slipping in the Ready on Day One talking points into what otherwise appears to be a genuine emotional moment comes off as far too calculated. I mean if it was a real behind-the-facade moment, I'd expect that the sloganeering would be left aside for a minute, but it wasn't.

In the end, I guess we're supposed to believe that she's emotional because she's genuinely concerned about the party nominating someone who's not ready, as opposed to nominating someone who isn't her. I'm not buying that for a second.

... further to my (rude) comment ... it's not that Presidential to start whining about not getting your own way. Get in there and make your case, speak to what you think the issues are that matter to the Electorate, and "takes yer chances".

I'm also reminded by NH of Howard Dean ... the guy who was to get the nod who melted down, making way for Lurch, who was thought to be done early ...

Women have been whining about the so-called "Glass Ceiling" for years. Well, every time one of the "sistahs" breaks out in tears, it really underscores the realization that women are not ready in America to have their hands on the reins of power.

So it's not a glass ceiling, women are just unfit to lead! Thanks for clearing that up.

It's all about the balls. If you're born with balls it's OK to let people SOMETIMES see your softer side. If you're born without balls you can't cry like that and still be perceived as a viable presidential contender.

Hillary's problem is that this feeds into the stereotype that women are too emotional to lead. Up until now, she could play at out-machoing the guys - not hard in her party. A lot of guys, and even plenty of women, are now going to ask themselves whether they want to risk an emotional breakdown on her part, should she be elected president, and should something untoward happen under her watch.

More on bodily fluids and the primaries. Today, Christopher Hitchens wrote the following:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool.

Ugh! But kinda good.

If I were Hillary, I'd be crying too. Obama has ascended the political muck, the first candidate to do so since Robert Kennedy. There's really nothing she can say against him or for herself that doesn't seem like a massive missing of the point.

The old American PR rhythm will eventually hit Obama and he will be taken down a peg, eventually. But by the time that happens, Hillary will be baking cookies, muttering to herself about how she blew it.

I was all pumped and jacked to come here and say maybe Hillary! should have married Ed Muskie.

Yeah, she's ready from day one. On day two Iran will pull something and she'll be crying about how difficult it is to sit there while her handlers put on her face. That'll scare'em.

Tearing up about something like 9/11 is one thing (and Hill's false story about Chelsea in danger another), crying because reality is at variance with her sense of self-entitlement is quite another.

Doyle, you're a bitter turd--we get it already. What I wonder about is why you feel the need to be an assh*le ALL the time? Are you jealous because the blogger here is successful and you're... you?

I suppose without the internet you'd be out poking strangers with pins, so in that sense I commend the esteemed Professor Althouse for tolerating your incivility in the name of the general welfare--you hapless pin PRICK.

bearbee said it pretty well--I don't recall Golda Meir, Dame Thatcher, or Indira Ghandi crying on the stump. If she can't handle a friggin political campaign, I don't want her making decisions that will put our troops in harms way. It makes no difference to me whether it was an act or not--in either case, she's not up to the task.

I think her behavior is repulsive. My objections to her were based on her being married to a former president and being a socialist/nanny, but her flirting, crying, and now sucking face with Christopher, baby convince me she is unqualified for any public office.

i've inferred from your last post that you are at best dull normal, so i'll type this really slowly...

if hillary finishes 3rd, she can't beat any of the GOP candidates. only the winner moves on to the final.

if you meant 3rd in NH, considering the range of the discussion, you should have written so (but you didn't mean that because if you had you would have included the step of getting the nomination). Occam's suggests that you're several dozen cognitive delegates short of a quorum.

She needs to blunt the news cycle pre-NH. Otherwise, negative Hillary stuff or pro-Edwards/Obama stuff would be broadcast. Instead, it's about her emotions and realness. She's trying to blunt the loss.

IMHO, whether Mrs. Clinton is a woman or a liberal or a Democrat or a stressed-out Soccer Mom has little to do with it. I’d prefer not to sound too much like a jerk, here, but what follows needs to be said.

I have some experience in the (sad little) discipline of stagecraft and passable tear-jerker acting is done, as follows:

(1) memorize your lines (or not, it’s not always necessary);

(2) convince yourself you’re among friends (the hardest part for honest people);

(3) feel the way you felt once before when someone hurt your feelings so much you were ashamed to cry; and

(4) anticipate the validation you’ll receive from your audience.

Just about anybody who’s had an unhappy childhood can do it. It doesn’t usually take more than four months of semi-concentrated study. The accomplished narcissist can pick it up even sooner.

That’s because the accomplished narcissist knows that the people who cry with you are really the entirety of the world and there is a just God, after all.

I am by NO means a Hillary admirer, but I did feel that this was the first time she showed genuine emotion. She is feeling sorry for herself. Herself....you note....not anyone else.

She didn't "cry". She did get a bit choked up. She would have to be a damned good actress to fake the emotions in that interview and we know from experience that she is never good at that sort of thing: coming off wooden and phoney. If anything it did make her a 'bit' more humanlike.

I'm no fan...I would never have voted for her...but here's a person who has worked her ass off at something for over a year (not counting all the years of planning) and when she comes to the realization that she's failed, she gets choked up. And what do you all do? You call her repulsive, manipulative, unfit for the job, a liar, etc.etc.

I guess because so many of you hate her so much, it's easy to hit her while she's down. Very mature. As you sit behind your computers, I wonder how much you will contribute to this country. I wonder if you will put yourself up for public humiliation and scrutiny in front of millions upon millions of people. I wonder what risks you've taken, for better or worse.

She has more guts than most of you will ever have, and if you took a break from your childish schadenfreude, maybe you'd at least give her credit for that.

I don't doubt Hillary's capacity for emotion. Tales of raging tantrums are too widespread to be doubted. But they are the emotions of a bully and tyrant, so it's perfectly understandable that she should shed real tears for the only thing that she really cares about. Namely Hillary Rodham Clinton and her all consuming ambition for power and stature.

Bill is a narcissist of a different stripe. He's more obsessed with adulation and the groupies it supplies

ZPS, for someone who's not a fan, you seem to think Hillary has accomplished a lot. In reality, she hasn't--beyond amassing huge amounts of personal wealth as a lawyer--which is why a lot of her detractors don't like her. The understanding is that she's riding Bill's coattails. When it comes down to it, she doesn't have much of a track record. Therefore, lack of sympathy when she claims to have so much to offer...

ZPS saidI wonder if you will put yourself up for public humiliation and scrutiny in front of millions upon millions of people. I wonder what risks you've taken, for better or worse.

She put her self up for public humiliation. No one else did it to her. She has not had any scrutiny. Compared to the other candidates she is an emigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma. No one in the media even questioned her claims. She ran a campaign based on hubris, entitlement to office, and inevitibility. She created her own down fall and huliliation.

Oh, I have taken risks. I risked my life for almost thrity years as a Police Officer. That is real risk. Running for office is just an ego massage.

If that were true, she wouldn't be throwing temper tantrums and crying in a vain attempt to rescue her campaign's momentum. She has $100 million and an excellent political machine. There are thousands of delegates yet to be distributed. She is not down. She is scheming. And manipulating. And you are falling for it, or trying to get us to. I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I hate the fact there is no rationale to her candidacy. She just wants the Presidency because she thinks she's entitled to it, like a brat who bawls for a pony for her birthday. I don't like that. I respected her before. Not after today.

For better or worse, it looks like the Democratic Party nominee will be someone who has only two years experience in national politics, no foreign policy experience, and who, less than a month ago, told the NY Times' Roger Cohen “I believe in American exceptionalism"...but not one based on “our military prowess or our economic dominance.”

Obama will be practically immune from criticism from the PC lefty media, and has the rock star appeal to capture the youth vote, who are apparently finally motivated to go to the polls. How many brainwashed students who see the world through the eyes of the likes of Howard Zinn have entered the voting ranks since 2000? He's the perfect PC Tranzi candidate, right down to refusing to hold his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance.

He's in way over his head and it is looking like he is on the way to cruising to the Oval Office. It will be the children in charge of the playground and the hard guys out there are licking their chops.

Then, on the night before South Carolina I want Fred Thompson bawling on Hannity and Colmes.

All of you seem to hate her because of her sense of entitlement and lack of a record. Uhh, reality check...all the candiates have the entitlement thing working (you'd have to in order to go for the job) and most of them have spotty records at best (planning the Olympics, losing 100 pounds, BFF with Orpah, corrupt mayor, etc.etc.).

You all hated her 15 years ago when she refused to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies and you hate her the same way now. You hate her because she's a woman. You hate because she's a Democrat. You hate her because you hate her husband. You hate her because she's capitalizing on her husband's success!...something a Woman SHOULD NEVER DO! It's classic and I can see right through you all.

For better or worse, it looks like the Democratic Party nominee will be someone who has only two years experience in national politics, no foreign policy experience,...

Yeah, yeah. Al Gore, had lots of experience. So did John Kerry. For that matter, if Democrats were still worrying about who had the 'most experience' then Richardson, Biden and Dodd would have finished 1-2-3 in Iowa instead of 4-5-6.

Besides, I'd only mention that the only President we've ever had who hailed from Illinois during the election had even less experience than Obama-- Abraham Lincoln also ran for the Senate a couple of years before running for President, but he lost that election and never even served in public office. So what does experience mean, anyway?

This is the personal politics drivel; if you hate their politics, you hate the person and thus invalidadte them.

Hillary is an empty shell. there is no substance, no experience, and no record. She is mediocrity exemplified. Also, she chose to enter the big arena and has to suffer the setbacks; just like all the other candidates.

WOW! I can't believe what I'm reading. What do you "guys" want from women? When a woman acts like she has balls, then she's too much of a man, but if she cries, she's a sissy.

I don't get it?

Oh, but I do. Most of you people are just like Bill O'Reilly and his stupid Harlem comment. You think it's really cool if you support and vote for a "brown" person. What don't you "guys" just come out and say it. It will require "balls" you know, to admit the truth!

And by the way, I haven't made up my mind yet, but you folks sure are pushing me toward Hillary.

I'll be sure to tell all of my friends about this blog. I'm sure that any who were thinking about voting for Obama will be quite turned off by the sexist, "women belong in the kitchen" flavored comments here.

An alternate explanation is that hillary tears cannot be authentic because hillaries cannot cry; they lack tear ducts. Yet this is a myth: hillaries possess lachrymal glands which secrete a proteinaceous fluid, just like in humans, though tears will only be visible after a hillary is out of the water for a prolonged period of time, and dries out. However, while hillaries can and do generate tears, they do not weep or cry for remorse or for anyone but their own sad sack selves.

That was the plan the whole time. All Hillary has is stoking the gender card by claiming there is misogyny out there. The entire thing was staged. I suspect, though, that the echo chamber of fake cries of misogyny within the Democratic Party simply isn't large enough to rescue New Hampshire. The saddest part is Edwards and Obama are out there actually trying to persuade undecided voters with arguments, not preying on their indigination with fake tears.

It's always funny when leftists erupt in moral high dudgeon accusing the right of hatred. It's natural I suppose to hate one's enemies but having been a foolish left leaning Clinton suporter back in the 90's I got to witness the right's hatred for Clinton from the same vantage point as I now see the left's hatred for Bush. I have never seen anything like the kind of murderous rage the left has for GWB. To compare the two requires completely different scales.

When a woman acts like she has balls, then she's too much of a man, but if she cries, she's a sissy. I don't get it?

Well then, let me explain it to you: men don't actually think the first part of that. I've never heard a guy complain that a woman acted too much like a guy. Oh, I'm sure some guys say stuff like that, but I've never heard it said about Hillary.

Hillary's problem is that she has an annoying personality. That is not a particularly gender-related problem, except inasmuch as men with annoying personalities are not usually able to ride their spouses' coattails the way that Hillary has Bill's.

GB43's dad did. Remember Kuwait? Sadam? He invaded Kuwait? Remember now? There was a war going on at the time. GB41 stopped the advance.

Then Hillary's husband did. He got to shoot down Sadam's jets, and launch some cruise missiles, into military sites, into aspirin factories. But noone actually died then, right MISS, because noone saw the dead bodies, and that would have been murder? Right MISS?

Noone got murdered in Kosovo either. Right MISS?

So the new strike into Iraq by GWB, 13 years after the war started, constitutes pulling the trigger and becoming a murderer now?

MISS, I gather you are female and a Hillary supporter. I hope you are old enough to vote, and I also hope you take some time to review a little history. It might help you with your histrionics.

Oh, I'm a troll! Well thank you very much! I'll wear that title proudly! But it doesn't change the fact that George and Dick are responsible for the deaths of millions. That's right, millions. I for one am tired of the "Godly" images they try to portray to intimidate Americans. There is nothing Godly about causing the deaths of millions of innocent people.

For those that say Hillary is manipulative and cunning and strategizing every move, it's no different than what our cowardly prez is doing. At least Hillary isn't throwing around scare tactics the way the Republicans do. Her only fault is falling for the crap that the Right used to scare the bejeezus out of a country when they felt vulnerable and for that I am disappointed in her, but all candidates have their faults. I think she learned a great lesson from that.

Hey-- you see that, over in the corner? It's a scare tactic, just tossed off by some loon! Looks like a "he's a murder" and "killed MILLLLLLLLLIIIIIOOOONNNNNNNS" combo. Wonder who threw that? It's a relatively delicious scare tactic at that, extremely fruity yet with a nutty bouquet at the same time.

There's no foam coming from my mouth. I'm cool, calm and collect. Looks like you guys sure do have your panties in a wad over a few comments made by a meek, insignificant woman who should be slaving a way in the kitchen.

Oh, your true colors are showing. You guys are afraid of Hillary. What a hoot!!!

Speaking only for myself my panties are hardly in a wad but I am rolling my eyes and moving to the other side of the street to give the crazy woman a bit more room. And while you are indeed insignificant meekness doesn't exactly emanate from your unhinged rantings.

Nor am I afraid of Hillary. I desperately want her to win the nomination because I am truly afraid of Obama.

Well it's been nice folks, but I'll leave you to either go back to fighting amongst yourselves or to continue to voice your support of a "brown" guy that none of you would ever have the guts to vote for anyway. Sadly most of you would never vote for a brown guy or a woman.

Parting words for you to think about - I wonder what you would be saying if Obama and Hillary were running on the Republican ticket. Would you support them then or go for the white guys? You don't even need to reply - we all know what the answer would be.

"Parting words for you to think about - I wonder what you would be saying if Obama and Hillary were running on the Republican ticket. Would you support them then or go for the white guys? You don't even need to reply - we all know what the answer would be."

Well how about a black woman? I'd gladly vote for Condi if her policy positions were more like John Bolton's.

Your notion that Republicans areracist is pure bigotry on your part. It's a cheap way for you to feel superior about yourself

I'm a musician and work in black clubs a lot. I get a kick out of inviting white liberal friends to come see me at one of them and watch how uncomfortable they are.

I wonder what you would be saying if Obama and Hillary were running on the Republican ticket.

I'd say they were waaaaaaaaaaaay too liberal to win as Republicans. But I've been saying that about Huckabee too, and he's doing pretty well.

Personally I was a very early supporter of a Condi run. And Colin Powell should have been the first black president back in '96, only he refused to run. I think he would have been much better as president than secretary of State. Would have won in a landslide over Clinton too.

But apparently he and his wife felt that the political opponents would have been way too nasty to a black Republican candidate.

You all hated her 15 years ago when she refused to stay in the kitchen and bake cookies and you hate her the same way now. You hate her because she's a woman. You hate because she's a Democrat. You hate her because you hate her husband. You hate her...

A bit OT, I agree with you that Powell could have won in 96. But I think he got the word early on from within the GOP that he would not be a suitable Republican candidate. I don't think it ever got far enough along for him to judge the Dem response to him.

John, is that true? I hadn't heart that. For some reason I thought it had come down to him wanting to run but his wife said no, because she was scared for him. I thought everything else was clear other than that.

You have none to impugn. You are a cookie cutter lefty troll who has never had an original thought in your head in your life. I know scads of people like you and your talking points and narrative are utterly predictable.

I was looking for a record of what Richard Viguerie was saying about Powell being too liberal. Also, his wife reportedly threatened to leave him if he ran. I think that he got little repub support in his runup to the campaign season, and didnt have the stomach for the fight.

I believe you would, Rev, and that's why I think it's Rush playing the gender card, in his analysis.

That makes no sense. I have never seen Nancy Pelosi cry, and she hasn't been the most effective Seapker in history. Good for her. I have no idea why a Presidential candidate with a decent shot at the nomination and $100 million in the bank is crying. It's just unbecoming. It is not Presidential. And it is awfully coincidentally exactly what she needs to do to curb her negatives with the women voters who have deserted her. I smell a rat. And so does my mother. I suppose my mother is a sexist for having an opinion. She should just shut up and vote Hillary. Because women making up their own minds about what they want in a President: that's misogyny. Please.

How? By accusing her of playing it -- he's the one looking through the prism of gender and spinning it as a calculated, gendered performance. He'll use that card over and over, as long as she's in the race.

Mortimer, I have no idea why you'd want to tell your mother to shut up and vote for anyone, or why you think she's sexist for being suspicious of Hillary.

I know that what I think, and what I'm saying, is that Rush is just as guilty of playing the gender card as he thinks Hillary is. If you want to weave tales of misogyny and sexism from that, go ahead. But it's a little hysterical.

If it was true that Hillary's display of emotion was inauthentic (which Rush supposedly believes), I think it would be fair to say that Hillary was taking advantage of her gender. After all, had a male candidate broken down and seemed on the verge of tears after losing Iowa, his Presidential hopes would be kaput. Women and men alike would watch that and think "what a wimp". Fairly or unfairly, women can get away with crying in public more readily than men can.

That being said, I don't think she was faking it. Her attempts to fake emotion have always seemed transparently phony to me, and this seemed genuine. Heck, in her position I'd probably be crying too, but then again I'm not emotionally fit to be President either. :)

So when John McCain gets all bellicose and martial, is he taking advantage of the kind of expression allowed to his gender, to generate some better press and get his numbers back up? This is new territory for us, with a woman in the presidential race, and it's raising interesting questions. What kind of personality would best serve a woman candidate for this office? In what ways does a woman candidate have to be careful about expressing emotions in a way that feels natural for her but would be damning for a man? Should women never cry in public, or should men try on the idea that crying doesn't always mean much of anything? How do men posture, and adjust their egos in public? How do they use charm, or project strength?

I don't think we can, or should, remove gender from our filters as we watch this race. But I'm not going to turn to Rush for a useful application of thoughtful analysis, either.

So when John McCain gets all bellicose and martial, is he taking advantage of the kind of expression allowed to his gender, to generate some better press and get his numbers back up?

I think the example of Thatcher and the Falklands war shows that female politicians can also win popular support by being bellicose. Heck, I'd be pleased as punch if Hillary promised to kick some radical Muslim butt, but the Kossites would probably throw her under the bus if she tried that.

Tearing up is an attempt to reboot her campaign and change the nature of the news coverage. So she can talk about her passion and Obama has to talk about his record and experience. And so she can blatantly play the gender card without being called on it.

Wow--leave this thread for a while and all sorts of strange folks crawling out of the woodwork..I am glad we get the occasional poster like MISS just to demonstrate how ignorant of reality some on that side of the aisle really are. Pathetic. Kind of makes you miss LOS and QUXXO.

Whether HRC was for real or faking it, its really immaterial. She has two constituencies she has to win: women and blacks. Obama split the gender vote in IA and I suspect he will take even more of it NH. South Carolina will show how the black vote may go; and given some recent polling data in SC, HRC is also in trouble there. She doesnt win those demographics big, she's toast--cell phone calls to Bubba, crying, age lines or shirt ironing nothiwithstanding.

Quote me, Mortimer, saying anyone (not just your dear mother) should shut up and vote for Hillary. You're quite mistaken. My comments in this thread are focused on what it means to "play the gender card." Nothing else. I don't care who your mother votes for.

Why is this getting so much attention? I most be blind, because I didn't see any tears. I heard a little choke up, which may or may not have been sincere, but given how calculated Hilary generally is, I highly doubt that this was a slip of unregulated emotion.

This is what I find upsetting about media and politics in our country today:1. we are more concerned about gossip than issue. We have attached hype to a supposed teary comment, which didn't seem very teary to me. Who cares? what about social security? National security? the economy? and yes, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea (could the dems talk about something other than pulling out of Iraq for once?)

2. Are we looking for something to make this a gender issue? Finally we can sin Hilary because she's a woman and can be vulnerable (again whether sincerely or not).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a republican for crying out loud, so I'm not trying to come to Hilary's defense, I just don't know why this silly little episodes have to mean everything. Poor Howard Dean probably hasn't showed an ounce of excitement since the shriek. Do we really need to pay so much attention to this? (well, now I guess I'm just as bad as the rest, weighing in like this). Please, please, please, please (and this is a plea to media, not bloggers), focus on facts rather than hyping something trivial like this.